Black-JFK Obama Dem ticket

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Black-JFK Obama Dem ticket

John · Senior Member

Even if Obama gets the Democrat nomination (which I still think Hillary has the edge) I have my doubt if he can really win Florida or Ohio in the general election. Florida has a lot of older people who are the Obama people even in the Democrat primary plus the Cubians aren't too keen on a black candidate and don't have "guilt complex" over race issues. Ohio has always had a lot of southern style reactions to race issues. If those two states get in the Republican column with other states that went Republican in 2004 move to Obama's side?

U.S. losses in Iraq are down and troop reductions will start and continue through out the year and a properly timed "peace is at hand" accouncement before the election should limit the antiwar issue. Plus the cut and run Democrats are overstating the real public position. I think the current economic scare will evaporate before the election and the "just give money away" stimulus package which is stupid but it will provide enough support to get economy going until next year.

Paul is just outside the Republican mainstream and the Democrats too. He is really a Libertarian.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Florida doesn't count in dem delegates. And I don't think Florida really isn't that important it's not a good measure of the rest of the country. Fla. is fractured enclaves of diverse voting blocks, in other words a very confused lot. Ohio electoral commission might be in court over the verification of their voting machines contested by the ACLU.
Iraq is in the middle east so is Iran the Neocons before the end of Bush's term will try to create incident and involve the incoming administration with an alleged provocative breach by Iran.

The Bush 'pocket change' called an economic stimulus package will last til April
when inflation eats up the last of the 'pocket change'.

Bush's plan is like the announcement that a single rogue trader at the 2nd largest bank in France just lost 7.5 billion francs-does the government expect it's people to believe such tripe. lol

John · Senior Member

In connection with Florida and Ohio, I was referring to the general election in the fall. I still can't see Obama actually winning those states. So the question remains how does he get to an electoral victory? Which states that Bush won in 2004 move to the Obama side?

It will be interesting to see where the Edwards voters go now. They seemed to be the Democrats that didn't want a woman or a minority. Now that have to chose one or the other! With the Florida outcome it seems to me that Hillary is basically holding in there after S.C. and Kennedy.

On the Republican side it sure looks it McCain. I hope now but I don't seen how he doesn't get it now. I'll be happy with the previous statement makes me look foolish in a week or two! The good news on him is that he will likely use the "global warming" issue to push for nuclear energy. The bad is ...well he's McCain!

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Well, John...looks like my prediction for the dems is forming.

Edwards slipped back in the hopes Obama or Hillary might wanna pick him as a running mate, but remember he was part of a losing ticket in last elections.
The dems are in a tight fight it's all-or-nothing, I kinda doubt these two would accept vice president on a dem ticket. Apart from Edwards it would have to be a popular figure (white male) able to pull votes from disaffected republicans and independents who don't like either Romney or McCain.

So other than Edwards who would that be...on style rather than substance?
(most Americans vote for a candidate based on looks and personality)

On energy self-sufficiency, everyone likes 'jimmy neutron' who this election has come out flat against the nuke option?

-- Edited by NUKE ROCKY44 at 00:59, 2008-02-01

John · Senior Member

I still think Hillary has the advantage but Obama is running strong race. I think Bill over did it a bit on his racial comments. The idea was to be stubtle but he got just a bit too overt. I agree that neither Hillary or Obama will pick the other for VP. I think one racial/gender breakthrough will be enough for this year. I don't think it will be Edwards either. How about Evan Bayh...now there is a white male that wouldn't run away moderate voters. But the governor of Indiana is Republican so that's no go. If the Dems wanted to go with ethinic play I think Bill Richardson would be ideal. He's Latino but he has an anglo name and he is a real Clinton known quantity, i.e. Secretary of Energy and U.N. Ambassador. Maybe former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa but he failed to deliver the state for Hillary. But a midwestern moderate would be good for balance. I think that Obama would definately want a similar choice but probably not a Hillary supporter.

On nuclear I think the Republican's are mostly pro but on the Democrat side they usually talk renewables. It they really are serious about CO2 reducing I don't seem any other choice.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

If you vote Hillary you get Bill and Bill is 'radioactive' with Uranium not that uranium is a bad thing, it's just like politicos to dip into oil money.
When you're high profile politician during a campaign, connections often paint the candidate in a way they don't like.

Mining tycoon wins Kazakhstan uranium deals after ex-president makes political connection[LINK]

I beg to differ on republican=nukes | democrats=green/solar issue.

Historically the Democrats ushered in an atomic age even Mr. 'Global Warming megaphone' Gore had a father who participated in building and securing funds at Oak Ridge Labs and I know JFK was big on nukes the Kennedy-dem wing is still nuke so by association Obama will be a big proponent of nukes if elected.

I think it's what the DNC wants as a sure winning ticket.

1st=Obama+Dodd
2nd=Clinton+Richardson

-- Edited by NUKE ROCKY44 at 22:08, 2008-02-01

John · Senior Member

I beg to differ on republican=nukes | democrats=green/solar issue.

Historically the Democrats ushered in an atomic age even Mr. 'Global Warming megaphone' Gore had a father who participated in building and securing funds at Oak Ridge Labs and I know JFK was big on nukes the Kennedy-dem wing is still nuke so by association Obama will be a big proponent of nukes if elected.I would kindly like to suggest a little more objectivity on this. Sure the Democrats were for nuclear energy in the 1940s through 1960s when in many ways they were the true progressive force in U.S. politics. One would have thought that Jimmy Carter who was a nuclear engineer would have been for nuclear energy but as I recall he wasn't. And, it is certainly under his term that nuclear energy died in the U.S. as I recall mainly over the fact that the government wouldn't provide catostrophic insurance protection to the nuclear utilities. Since the Democrats are basically antinuke and the Republicans are weakly pronuke (but they won't risk anything for it). McCain might just do that because he believe the global warming BS and knows most of soft tech stuff won't deliever the goods.

What a president Obama might do is very unpredicatable at best. He is not pronuke going in but I've had this idea for years of calling the global warmers bluff be saying sure it's a big crisis and that's why we should go full scale for nuclear! My though is that they would back down on the warming stuff but I just might be wrong.

-- Edited by John at 16:32, 2008-02-02

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

What a president Obama might do is very unpredictable at best. He is not pronuke going in but I've had this idea for years of calling the global warmers bluff be saying sure it's a big crisis and that's why we should go full scale for nuclear! My though is that they would back down on the warming stuff but I just might be wrong.

Yea, I kinda agree...I don't think the dems have a choice they would have to push for an energy policy draw-up that would include nukes as a keystone if they want to be seen as reducing GHG's and self-sufficiency. Big oil now is flush with cash. I don't think a dem administration would provide free reign for oil as was the case for republicans. The coal industry will push for their energy wasting ground water polluting CO2 subterranean capture.
My view generally speaking the nuke industry is plagued by those in the industry that think of themselves as insulated and don't respond to political critics like big oil propaganda and Greenpeace fanatics very few actually state the case past mainstream media. The other problem is the nature of the science prompts an excessive amount of safety which is known to threaten construction, design and operations of reactor facilities and the legendary fights with the NRC. The latest fiasco was the shutdown of Chalk river medical isotope production reactor in Canada. Puts patient care in N. American at risk.

Both the gov't and operators resort to finger pointing each other, in the meantime few problems are actually resolved. The other insidious problem with a balanced energy policy is nuke operations require adequately trained staff to efficiently run a robust nuke program. I don't think the U.S. has enough people on the ground to do that. Most people think they have to get an expensive masters degree in nuclear engineering to get a decent job in the field. I think it should be streamlined just like in the Navy where technicians are trained efficiently in less time than in civilian life.

The republicans are dead for at least 8 years, I don't see them amounting to much other than standing in as weak opposition.

The carter period also trashed the AEC and now has a crazy department called the DOE. I guess now America and pin their hopes of a sane energy policy with the DOE - good luck ??

-- Edited by NUKE ROCKY44 at 21:47, 2008-02-02